Appeal 6007236

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted to erect 1 x self-build/custom build dwelling at [address], [site address] , Doddington, Cambridgeshire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/YR25/0860/F subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

An application for costs was made by [name] against the decision of Fenland District Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

The decision paragraph uses the more concise description contained on the Council’s decision, which adequately reflects the proposed development. This description is also used on the appellant's appeal form.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and • the suitability of the proposed access to the site, with particular regard to highway safety and the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

[address] is a narrow route extending from the settlement of Doddington towards the countryside. Grass verges, hedgerows, occasional mature trees and glimpsed views of the fields beyond contribute positively to its rural character. This character is not uniform as one side of the lane is punctuated by built development, including dwellinghouses and private drives such as [name]. Development along [name] comprises a series of recently constructed, large detached dwellinghouses arranged on one side of the drive. Notwithstanding this, the spacing between buildings, together with the presence of vegetation, ensures the area retains a generally open and transitional quality between the settlement edge and the wider countryside, with a spacious and cohesive appearance overall.

The appeal site is located to the rear of numbers 3 and 4 [name] and [site address] (No 26). Access would be between numbers 4 and 5 [name]. While the appellant describes the appeal site as being part of the rear garden area of No 26, it has the appearance of an open undeveloped plot more akin to paddock land rather than managed garden. Although its open and undeveloped nature makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area, it exists within the context of residential development and associated garden land.

I have had regard to the previous appeal decision, dismissed in 20251 (the previous appeal), which related to an outline application for two dwellings on a larger site encompassing the appeal site. That decision was reached in the absence of reserved matters, including siting, scale and appearance. Nevertheless, that decision was not dismissed for reasons relating to the main issues in this appeal. In particular, the Inspector in that case concluded that residential development on that site would not, in principle, be inconsistent with the established pattern of development in the area.

In the current case, the proposed dwelling would likewise be positioned to the rear of properties along [name] and would broadly align in a back-to-back relationship with No 26. While it would differ in orientation and have a roughly square footprint similar to No 26 rather than dwellings on [name], the plot to building ratio would remain broadly comparable to that observed in the surrounding area, and would not extend the spatial form of the settlement. As such, its siting would not appear wholly discordant with the existing pattern of development, and I find no reason to depart from the previous Inspector’s conclusion in this regard.

The set-back position of the proposed dwelling behind established frontage development would limit its wider visual influence, including from [address]. In more distant views from the surrounding countryside, it would be seen in the context of adjacent residential development rather than in isolation. It would however be visible from neighbouring properties.

The proposed dwelling would be of substantial scale, comprising three-storeys with a greater ridge height than neighbouring properties, along with a sizeable area of hardstanding to its frontage. Its form and design, including expanses of unbroken brickwork, asymmetrical fenestration and dormer windows, would give rise to a somewhat bulky appearance with a relatively dominant roof form. Nevertheless, it would not be so materially greater in scale, height or different in design, appearance or materials as to appear incongruous in the context of adjacent development. Furthermore, having regard to the proposed separation distances and spatial relationships, it would not result in a demonstrably overbearing form of development for neighbouring occupiers. Adequate spacing around the proposed dwelling is 1 Appeal ref: APP/ D0515/W/16/3141736 proposed, and the appellant has also indicated a willingness to provide additional soft landscaping, which could overtime soften the development and could be secured by condition.

Taking all of these factors into account, including the previous Inspector’s findings, and while acknowledging that the design exhibits some shortcomings, these would not, either alone or cumulatively, result in a form of development that is so out of keeping with its surroundings as to warrant dismissal.

I conclude that the proposed development would not result in an adverse effect upon the character and appearance of the area. In this regard, it would comply with Policies LP12 and LP16 of the Fenland Local Plan (2014) (LP) which requires proposals to be of a scale and in a location that is in keeping with the core shape and form of the settlement, not adversely harm its character and appearance and to respond to and improve the character of the local built environment.

For the same reasons, there would be no conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) insofar as it requires planning decisions to ensure that development is sympathetic to local character including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting.

[address] is narrow and in part insufficient in width to readily accommodate two-way vehicle movements. The footway is also narrow and there is no street lighting. [name], while of sufficient width to accommodate two-way vehicle movements, is unlit, lacks a defined pedestrian footpath and is surfaced in gravel. These characteristics are not uncommon within this transitional, semi-rural context, where development is often served by narrower roads and less formalised highways arrangements.

The limited width of [address] requires both drivers and pedestrians to exercise a degree of care. This may necessitate vehicles slowing, stopping and manoeuvring, potentially onto the footway, to pass as appropriate. However, this is an existing situation, and the Local Highways Authority raises no objection to the proposed development. While the Council indicate that the lane is operating at the margins of safe capacity, there is no substantive evidence before me to indicate the activity associated with a single additional dwelling, even though it could be served by multiple vehicles, would give rise to a material increase in highway safety risk or to unacceptable inconvenience for road users beyond current baseline conditions. This is even when considered cumulatively alongside the outline planning permission for two further dwellings long May Meadows2.

Interested parties raise concerns regarding the potential effect of increased use of the gravel surface on [name] on living conditions, as in their experience, they contend that this generates noise and disturbance when vehicles traverse over it. The Council’s Committee report indicates that this surfacing may not have been approved under previous unrelated permissions. This is a separate matter for the Council to investigate and falls outside the remit of this appeal.

Nevertheless, even if the gravel surface were to remain or indeed be lawful, the modest increase in vehicle movements associated with a single dwelling would not 2 Council ref: F/YR24/0548/O materially intensify such effects to the extent that unacceptable harm would arise to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. This is because any noise generated from a single dwelling would be likely be limited in extent and intermittent in nature.

That said, I have considered the appellant’s request for the proposed driveway extension to be surfaced in gravel, on the basis that it allows for free drainage and slows vehicles down. However, given that vehicles using this access extension would pass immediately between the sides of two neighbouring dwellings and their respective rear gardens, and taking into account the Council’s and interested parties views in this regard, a condition requiring the driveway extension from [name] to be surfaced in a bound material, would be reasonable and necessary, to ensure that the appeal development itself would not give rise to any potential noise and disturbance issues.

Whether or not refuse vehicles reverse along [name] is unclear. However, the Council’s committee report raised no concerns specifically in relation to refuse storage or collection. Furthermore, the Inspector in determining the previous appeal was not persuaded that the proposed bin storage area would be a reason to dismiss that appeal. I find no reason to disagree with that view and consider the final bin storage/collection arrangement could be adequately dealt with via condition.

I conclude that the proposed access to the site would be suitable and would not result in a harmful effect on highway safety or the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. In this regard, it would comply with Policies LP2 and LP16 of the LP which seek to deliver high quality environments and for development proposals to positively contribute to creating a healthy, safe and equitable living environment.

For the same reasons, there would be no conflict with the Framework insofar as it seeks to achieve well-designed places and states that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

Biodiversity net gain (BNG) is mandatory under Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and unless exempt, development must deliver 10% BNG. The proposed development has been advanced as a self-build/custom build dwelling, which can qualify for an exemption. In this case, and as set out in the relevant section below, an appropriately executed legal agreement is in place to secure this. The Council has also confirmed the submitted legal agreement is acceptable. Therefore, I am satisfied that the statutory BNG requirements do not apply.

The Council has found the proposed development to be acceptable in all other respects, including in relation to the principle of development, flood risk, drainage, air quality, public rights of way and its effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to outlook, sunlight/daylight and privacy. Having considered the proposed development and visited the site, I have no reason to find otherwise. While the planning committee minutes refer to the proposed development offering no amenities or community benefit, I am not aware of any specific development plan requirements in these respects.

Interested parties have raised additional concerns, including the maintenance of [name], vehicle speeds, mud on the road and damage to grass verges. Reference has also been made to outstanding planning conditions relating to other developments in the vicinity and the potential for further development. However, these matters relate to the operation and maintenance of existing accesses, compliance with conditions on separate planning permissions, or fall under other regulatory regimes. Any future development would be subject to its own assessment. Furthermore, the request to increase the height of a fence adjacent to [name] is not necessary to make the development acceptable. As such, these matters do not alter my conclusions on the main issues.

Various conditions have been suggested by the Council in the event the appeal is allowed. I have considered these against the tests in the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance and amalgamated and amended them as appropriate.

In addition to the standard time condition (1), I have imposed a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans (2) in the interests of certainty.

Conditions relating to materials (3) and hard and soft landscaping (5) and (6) are necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. The Council’s suggested conditions relating to lighting and surfacing have been combined within Condition 5 in the interests of precision, for reasons relating to living conditions as set out under the main issue, as well as for reasons relating to crime prevention.

A condition requiring a temporary construction facilities area (4) and the provision of vehicle parking spaces and the driveway (7) are reasonable and necessary in the interests of maintaining free and safe use of existing accesses and to safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

While the Council’s Environmental Health Officer recommended a condition restricting construction hours, the Council’s committee report does not consider such a condition to be necessary. On the evidence before me, and having regard to the scale of development, I also find that such a condition would not meet the relevant tests.

A legal agreement dated 8 June 2026, submitted as a unilateral undertaking pursuant to section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 was submitted with the appeal. This secures the occupation of the appeal dwelling as a custom and self-build plot3. This would meet the requirements of Paragraph 58 of the Framework and Regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, as amended, in that it is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms to secure the delivery of BNG. 3 in accordance with section 1 of the Self-Build and [name] 2015 (or such other replacement or successor legislation).

Planning law requires applications for planning permission to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the proposed development would accord with the development plan and the Framework, and there are no considerations that outweigh that conclusion. For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 20250927-002-RevB, 20250927-003-RevA and 20250927-004-RevB.

The external surfaces of the dwelling hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials shown on plan no 20250927-004-RevB.

Prior to the commencement of development, details of a temporary facilities area shall first be submitted to and approved in writing with the local planning authority. This area shall be provided clear of the public highway for the parking, turning, loading and unloading of all vehicles visiting the site during the period of construction. Development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

[name] 2) above, no development shall commence until a final scheme of soft and hard landscaping has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These details shall include; planting plans and specifications; means of enclosure and boundary treatments; hard surfacing materials, including for the parking and driveway extension off [name] to be surfaced in a bound material and drained within the site; refuse or other storage units; external lighting; an implementation programme. The scheme of soft and hard landscaping shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and in accordance with the agreed implementation programme.

All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.

The dwelling shall not be occupied until the proposed vehicle parking spaces and driveway have been provided in accordance with the layout shown on drawing no 20250927-002-RevB and the materials approved by condition 5). Thereafter those spaces and driveway shall be retained for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles only. END OF SCHEDULE